ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement. 2. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA 2002), in connection with Enforcement Case Information Report ECIR/02/PAT/09/AD. 3. The brief facts of the case are necessary to be mentioned. A complaint case was filed by one Rajeev Sharma which was registered as Complaint Case No. 01 of 2009 and it was sent for institution of the police case under the provision of Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., on the basis of which the vigilance P. S. Case No. 9 of 2009 was instituted against this petitioner and the other co-accused persons including the then Chief Minister of Jharkhand, for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 423, 434, 465, 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 on the allegation that huge property was amassed by the petitioner and the other accused persons misusing their official position as Chief Minister and the Minister in the State of Jharkhand. It may be mentioned that at the relevant time the petitioner was the Minister of Water Resource Department in the State of Jharkhand and there is allegation against him also to have amassed huge property worth several crores of rupees through illegal means. In the vigilance case, the charge sheet had been submitted, in which, upon investigation it was found that by misusing his official position, the petitioner had acquired ill gotten assets, disproportionate to his known sources of income, to the tune of Rs. 1,75,15,918/-. 4. It further appears that a writ petition was filed being W.P.(PIL) No. 4700 of 2008 and pursuant to the order dated 4.8.2010 passed therein, the investigation of the case was entrusted to the C.B.I., whereupon R. C. Case No. 5(A)/2010/AHD-R was instituted against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons. The charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner in the said R. C. Case No. 5(A)/2010/AHD-R also, only with respect to the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and it was found upon the investigation that the petitioner had acquired the ill gotten assets, disproportionate of known source of the income, to the tune of Rs. 5,46,07,597/-. 5,46,07,597/-. It may be mentioned that so far as the allegation for the offences under the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the investigation in the R. C. Case No. 5(A)/2010/AHD-R is still going on. 5. Be that as it may, due to the disproportionate assets having been found to have been acquired by the petitioner, the present case has been instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, which was registered as ECIR/02/PAT/09/AD for the offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 6. In the present case, there is allegation against the petitioner to have acquired the assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs. 4,43,72,783/- in his own name and the names of his family members and, accordingly, it was found that the assets were generated directly or indirectly in course of the criminal activities as mentioned in the charge sheet filed by the Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi, and the ‘proceeds of crime’ or the ill-gotten money was projected by the petitioner as untainted money, thus making out the offence against the petitioner under Money Laundering Act. 7. It may be stated that the petitioner is in custody in connection with the vigilance case since 30.11.2009 and has been remanded in this case on 16.12.2010. The petitioner was granted bail by this Court in connection with R. C. Case No. 5(A)/2010/AHD-R by order dated 13.12.2010 in B. A. No. 9220 of 2010, which has been brought on record as Annexure - 4 of this application with certain conditions as mentioned in the order itself. It appears that upon getting bail in the said R. C. Case No. 5(A)/2010/AHD-R, the petitioner was remanded in connection with this case on 16.12.2010. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already been granted bail in the main case filed against the petitioner and present case is only an off-shoot to the main case, wherein it is alleged that the ‘proceeds of crime’ found in the said R. C. case have been projected as untainted money by the petitioner and, accordingly, the offence is made out against the petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner has been granted bail in the main case, he should be released in this case also. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner has been granted bail in the main case, he should be released in this case also. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments, including the heart ailments and on the date of remand of the petitioner in the present case, the petitioner had been brought on stretcher before the Court, as is apparent from the order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the Court below, as contained in Annexure – 11 to this application. 9. The medical reports of the petitioner have been brought on record which show that the C.T. Scan of Brain of the petitioner was done on 07.02.2012 and a ‘small falx lipoma with no peripherial edema’ was found in brain of the petitioner and it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a brain tumor and the condition of the petitioner has further deteriorated in the jail. It has also been submitted that as the proper treatment is not available at Ranchi, the petitioner may be granted bail. 10. The case was earlier heard on 27.04.2012 and the Court found that the prognosis of this ailment was not mentioned in the report. Accordingly, a report was called for from the Superintendent of RIMS, Ranchi where the C.T. Scan of the petitioner had been done and the Superintendent of the RIMS, Ranchi was directed to submit the report with the help of the Medical Board. The report has since been received by the Court, which shows that the size of lipoma may increase and may cause complications. The members of the Medical Board have opined that ‘besides his medical problems and neuropathy this ailment needs to be evaluated and managed at a higher center.’ 11. Learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the other co-accused persons have been allowed the treatment at higher center at their own costs even though their bail applications have been rejected. Accordingly, the same order may be passed in the present case also. 12. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides, I find that the case of the petitioner is on a different footing than the case of the other accused persons. Accordingly, the same order may be passed in the present case also. 12. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides, I find that the case of the petitioner is on a different footing than the case of the other accused persons. The petitioner has already been granted bail in the main case, i.e., in R.C. Case No. 5(A)/2010/AHD-R by order dated 13.12.2010 passed in B. A. No. 9220 of 2010. The present case is only an off-shoot of the main case, with the only allegation that the ‘proceeds of crime’ or ill-gotten money in the said case has been projected by the petitioner to be untainted money. This apart, taking into consideration the serious ailments of the petitioner, which the Medical Board has opined, is required to be evaluated and managed at a higher center, as also taking into consideration that fact that the petitioner is in custody since 30.11.2009 itself in connection with vigilance P. S. Case No. 9 of 2009 and in the present case also he is in custody since 16.12.2010, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Kamlesh Kumar Singh @ Kamlesh Singh is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1st A.J.C.-Cum-Special Judge, P.M.L. Act, Ranchi, in connection with ECIR/02/PAT/09/AD with the same conditions as imposed upon the petitioner in the order dated 13.12.2010 in B. A. No. 9220 of 2010.